> > On 8/28/07, Darrin Chandler wrote:
> > > Normally I wouldn't repeat undeadly stuff here on misc@, but I'm sure
> > > many of you will want to know.
> > >
> > >
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634
> > >
> > >
> > > And if you do this kind of thing, it's worth letting the rest of the
> > > world in on this:
> > >
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Lnux_Driver_Violated_BSD_License
> >
> > I am currently having a discussion about dual licensing, and am a bit
> > confused. Is Reyk and others working on this drivers code dual
> > licensed (from the diff it doesn't seem like it is, since I see a BSD
> > 3 Clause)? Also say I submit a patch for this driver, does that mean
> > this will have to be dual licensed also or can I choose if it is BSD 3
> > Clause or GPLv2?
>
> Well, there are two parts to the Atheros driver.
>
> Reyk's code is *NOT* dual-licensed under the GPL. So there is no
> issue with Reyk's code. He has explicitly stated that his code is not
> dual-licenced. The file have no GPL on them. He's the author, he
> said so. None else can add a GPL to it. (No matter how much Luis
> begs and pleads and whines).
>
> The other part of the driver was written by Sam Leffler. Sam's code,
> though, is dual-licenced with a 4-term BSD'ish license (it has only 3
> terms, but the wrong term was deleted, and the attribution term was
> actually strengthened -- read the license). The GPL annotation in the
> licenses says specifically --
>
> * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
> * Software Foundation.
>
> Note that word "Alternatively".
>
> That means "or".
>
> That means that if anyone makes changes to that file and distributes it,
> after their changes are in the file then EITHER license will apply.
>
> Since it says "Alternatively" / "Or", we can simply take any of those
> new changes UNDER THE LICENSE WE PREFER, and commit them to our file
> which is NOT dual licensed. If they want to use the GPL to restrict
> our use -- that is us, the original authors, see -- they should work
> on seperate files.
>
> Note there are some files out there that don't use words like "or" or
> "alternatively" when they mix licenses. One must read what the
> license says very carefully. Trying to brush everything into the same
> simple catagories will get you nowhere.
>
> As a commentary, it seems as if many people have tired of the "make my
> own license" game, and now are playing the "mix licenses in my own
> way" game. And the "interpret it in the way that is most beneficial
> to me" game.
>
> Simpler said, I don't know why they have to be such jerks. Luis in
> particular has been ragging on Reyk for years to dual license his
> code, and won't take no for an answer. It's already totally free code,
> but apparently there is some stupid Linus rule that says that all the
> code must not be free .... noooo.... it can't just be free, it has to
> be SPECIFICALLY GPL. Now I know that's not the truth, because the Linux
> tree is FULL of objectional code that either has CSRG licences on it, or
> no license at all.
>
> Now he's saying that Linux people should basically ignore Reyk's
> license. Well screw you Luis, that is precisely not what you will do
> -- you uneducated twit. Copyright is law. You will obey it.
>
>
> Anyways, hope that explained the question you asked, FOR THIS PARTICULAR
> CASE. As I say, read the exact files, and the exact licenses.
